Advertisement

jayhawkca

Follow

Comment history

Programs aim to plug brain drain

"Brain drain" is actually a term that refers to the emigration of people with high levels of education/technical knowledge/skills.

June 10, 2012 at 10:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Same Sex "Marriage" Is Biologically Impossible

To adequately support the claims in your blog, you need peer-reviewed sources, not Wikipedia.

May 18, 2012 at 4:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence man who attacked woman on bicycle path gets 14 years in prison

No, at minimum, he will serve 85% of the sentence.

March 1, 2011 at 12:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas House approves Nebraska-style fetal pain abortion bill

Rdragon, I think you meant to say *you're* welcome.

You're welcome.

February 25, 2011 at 2:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas House votes to end program allowing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants

To get from Premise A (the government is not enforcing immigration law) to the Conclusion (the government should not enforce any law), you need to present the following premises:
B. The government is choosing which laws to enforce/is not enforcing all laws. (Deduced from Premise A)
C. The government should not be allowed to choose which laws it will enforce. (Hidden assumption that does not logically follow, either by deductive or inductive reasoning, from Premise A. You also need the assumptions of Premise C, below)
C1. The government should enforce all rules as they are written. For this to be at all American (think about the Bill of Rights and the other Constitutional Amendments), you must also add the following assumptions:
C2. New laws can be written.
C3. Extant laws can be amended.
D. No law is intrinsically valuable. (This must be true if you want to say that no law is valuable unless all other laws are enforced.)
If Premise D is true, then that means that the illegality of, say, murder is not inherently valuable. (As a syllogism, if no A [laws] are B [intrinsically valuable] and C [the prohibition of murder] is an A, then C is not B.)
A, B, C, and D are necessary and sufficient conditions for the Conclusion.
If A, B, C, and D are true, then Conclusion is true. You have to ask yourself, though is D true? Is C true?

If you have trouble swallowing Premise D, either in general or when specifically referring to immigration law, then maybe you should re-think Premise D. Without Premise D, which is necessary for your Conclusion, your argument is invalid.

Assuming all of the requisite premises are true, there are other arguments that you can make.

For example, if C2 and C3 are true, then immigration law could be changed. If immigration law were changed and all other laws were stayed the same and were enforced, then the government would be enforcing all laws. If the immigration law is not inherently valuable (per Premise D), then changing it is not a big deal and is allowed in this country.

I am not making a conclusion about whether allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition is right. My opinion on this law is irrelevant, actually. All I am saying is that your argument is hardly logical, however “logical” it may be.

February 23, 2011 at 1:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas House votes to end program allowing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants

I'm torn on the issue, but that is not the point. My reason for disclosing this is that I don’t want the following to be interpreted as an argument for or against in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

The problem that I see with your statement is that it isn't necessarily illogical to be emotional. Reason and emotion are not mutually exclusive. In fact, without emotion, it's pretty hard to make decisions. This is not to say that we shouldn't enforce our laws and have respect for our sovereignty. I'm just pointing out that logic/emotion is a false dichotomy when it comes to real-world application. If you are interested in the importance of emotion in decision-making, I would recommend reading Antonio Damasio’s work with patient EVR, literature on the somatic marker hypothesis, or scholarly articles with the key words “cognitive neuroscience,” “emotion,” and “decision making.”

To say that something is "logical" in the colloquial sense (e.g., your statement, "Logic dictates that we enforce the law otherwise why have laws") in no way indicates that it is actually philosophically logical. First, I present a paraphrase of your statement: the government is not enforcing immigration law; therefore, the government should not enforce any law. The conclusion does not logically follow the premise. A logical conclusion of your premise would be that the government is not enforcing all of its laws. The following is a valid argument: the government is not enforcing immigration law; therefore, the government is choosing which laws it will enforce. Perhaps this is what you meant. Assuming this is what you wanted to say, we still have not reached the connection between condoning illegal immigration and disregarding all other laws. There are still premises without which your argument is not valid.

February 23, 2011 at 1:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas bar owners say enforcing long-ignored liquor law means higher drink prices

If you're asking whether the price of $1 for an 80 proof shot would be applied proportionally to a 100 proof shot, then I can pretty much guarantee that the 100 proof shot would not cost $1.20.

July 13, 2010 at 5:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Crime victims compensation board starts work

You had to be the victim of a crime AFTER April 1, 2010. If you went and got yourself victimized before that date, you're SOL.

June 24, 2010 at 9 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kobach: Border battle affects all states

How ironic.

June 7, 2010 at 11:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kobach: Border battle affects all states

How ironic.

June 7, 2010 at 11:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous